Re: Fw: Re: [tied] hoopoe

I think stump and tuft are from the same root --"sth
that sticks up, sth plug-shaped". i suppose "tap, top,
stop" are from the same word. Also Spanish tope
"traffic bump, dead end", topar(se) "to bump into".

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

> Torsten,
>
> just to let you know, I am aware of Pokorny's
> *(s)teu-p-, 'stump'. and
> perhaps we are dealing with a semantically related
> unattested meaning of
> 'tuft' for it?
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 3:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [tied] hoopoe
>
>
> > Yes, Torsten, thank you.
> >
> > It may be a better cognate for D(w)b, 'hoopoe',
> than *tap-.
> >
> > I looked but could not find anything like <stuppa>
> in Pokorny.
> >
> > Is it there and I missed it?
> >
> > With Db (*Dwb), PIE *teup- would work much more
> satisfactorily.
> >
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 3:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: [tied] hoopoe
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: tgpedersen
> > > > >
> > > > > =============
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick
> McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the words for tuft of hair, pompon and
> tutf of
> > > > tree --if they are related-- are from the word
> for
> > > > hoopoe, which definitely has a tuft in the
> picture.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You noticed it too? Perhaps the *dz could
> explain the s-mobile, st-/t-
> > > alternation in stuppa/top etc:
> > >
>

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/54315

> > >
> > > Torsten
> > >
> > > =============
> > >
> > > One conspicuous feature of s-mobile,
> > > is that it's about the only phoneme that
> > > never assimilates :
> > > s +k > s-k
> > > but
> > > s + g > s-k as well
> > >
> > > My own explanation is this :
> > >
> > > LAte PIE fused *z and *dz
> > > (after Salish split off)
> > > or maybe *z and *dz disappeared
> > > altogether.
> > > But *ts did not fuse with *s
> > > immediately.
> > > They remained in contrast.
> > >
> > > *ts could not assimilate into *dz
> > > because there was no *dz
> > > *ts was *locked-in* as unvoiced.
> > > Hence ts-g forced inverted assimilation
> > > because *dz-g was impossible
> > > (no dz in the system !)
> > > Hence ts-k which surfaces as *s-k
> > >
> > > But this is maybe too early to discuss
> > > because you haven't admitted *z and *dz yet.
> > >
> > > Arnaud
> > >
> > > ==========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs